Bitcoin vs Bitcoin Cash: BTC vs BCH Compared in 2026

Bitcoin leads in security, liquidity and scaling, while Bitcoin Cash prioritizes greater Layer 1 transaction capacity and inexpensive on-chain payments.

That original scaling disagreement in 2017 has now reached far beyond block size. BTC has developed much deeper liquidity, institutional infrastructure and mining security. BCH has continued expanding its Layer 1 design through adaptive block capacity, native token functionality and more expressive UTXO scripting.

This guide compares BTC and BCH across scaling, fees, security, payments, adoption, investment performance, programmability and decentralization to explain where each network is stronger and which may be better suited to different users.

Editor's Note (Aug. 27, 2026): We fully updated this article in August 2026 to reflect how Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash have evolved since the 2017 fork. The refresh adds current fee, hash-rate, adoption and institutional data, updated scaling comparisons, Lightning and ABLA coverage, CashTokens and CashVM developments, historical investment performance, decentralization analysis and a clearer breakdown of which network is better suited to different use cases.

Bitcoin vs Bitcoin Cash: The Key Differences

The biggest differences between Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash are their scaling strategies, transaction-fee environments, network security, liquidity and approach to programmability.

Scaling: Bitcoin's Layered Model vs Bitcoin Cash's On-Chain Model

Bitcoin keeps base-layer block space relatively constrained and increasingly relies on Layer 2 systems for additional transaction capacity. Bitcoin Cash allows substantially more activity directly on Layer 1 and has used the Adaptive Blocksize Limit Algorithm since 2024.

Bitcoin's broader scaling strategy moves some transaction activity beyond the base blockchain. The Lightning Network allows participants to exchange many payments through channels without placing every individual payment directly into a Bitcoin block.

Bitcoin Cash went in the other direction after the fork. It increased Layer 1 capacity and eventually moved beyond manually scheduled block-size increases. The May 15, 2024 network upgrade activated the Adaptive Blocksize Limit Algorithm, or ABLA. ABLA allows BCH's maximum permitted block size to adjust gradually according to previous block utilization. The mechanism is intended to let capacity expand with sustained demand instead of requiring another political fight and protocol upgrade every time more space is needed.

Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Cash Node also reflect the two networks' separate development paths. Bitcoin Core remains the dominant Bitcoin full-node implementation, while Bitcoin Cash Node is one of the main implementations enforcing BCH consensus rules such as ABLA. Bitcoin now uses SegWit block weight, while BCH uses an adaptive block-size framework.

In short, Bitcoin primarily scales by moving some activity above the base layer, while Bitcoin Cash attempts to accommodate more transactions directly on the blockchain.

Transaction Fees and Payment Speed

Bitcoin Cash generally has lower Layer 1 transaction fees than Bitcoin, but both networks target roughly 10-minute block intervals.

As of Aug. 27, 2026, Bitcoin's average on-chain transaction fee was approximately $0.386, with a median fee near $0.05. Bitcoin Cash averaged roughly $0.0075, with a median near $0.001.

Fees reflect the market for block space. Transactions waiting for confirmation enter the mempool, while users attach fees to encourage miners to include them. Bitcoin experiences much greater economic demand against a more constrained Layer 1. BCH currently has far more spare capacity relative to the amount of transaction activity it processes, so users rarely need to compete aggressively for block space.

That does not mean BCH simply produces blocks faster. Both networks inherit an average block target of roughly 10 minutes. Short observation windows can vary considerably because Proof-of-Work block discovery is probabilistic. Bitcoin's measured average was around 9 minutes and 56 seconds in the current snapshot, while BCH was around 12 minutes and 52 seconds.

Network Security and Hash Rate

Bitcoin has a significantly stronger Proof-of-Work security profile than Bitcoin Cash because substantially more SHA-256 hash power secures the Bitcoin network. 

The gap is enormous. 

Bitcoin's hash rate was approximately 861.4 EH/s when checked on Aug. 27, 2026, compared with roughly 3.2 EH/s for Bitcoin Cash. That puts Bitcoin at roughly 269 times BCH's measured hash rate. Both networks use Proof of Work and the same SHA-256 mining algorithm. Compatible ASIC mining hardware can therefore switch between BTC and BCH rather than being physically restricted to one network.

Mining difficulty adjusts separately on the two chains. The process changes how difficult it is for miners to find a valid block so that block production stays around the protocol target despite changes in total mining power.

Adoption, Liquidity and Network Effects

Bitcoin is much more widely adopted in economic terms, even though Bitcoin Cash has substantially more unused Layer 1 transaction capacity.

Market capitalization gives the clearest first comparison. On Aug. 27, 2026, BTC was worth approximately $1.61 trillion in aggregate market value. BCH was around $5.6 billion. Trading liquidity shows a similar gap.

Institutional access has also developed very differently. Bitcoin is available through U.S. spot ETFs, regulated futures and options, institutional custody services and a broad OTC market. BlackRock's IBIT alone holds approximately $60.34 billion in net assets.

BCH does have institutional wrappers, including Grayscale's BCHG trust and physically backed exchange-traded products. Those products confirm that institutional access exists, but their scale sits far below Bitcoin's market.

On-chain activity also favors BTC. BitInfoCharts recorded approximately 619,406 Bitcoin transactions and 85,047 active addresses over the last 24-hour period. BCH recorded approximately 12,297 transactions and 20,691 active addresses.

Bitcoin Cash can technically accommodate considerably more Layer 1 activity than it currently processes, while Bitcoin experiences substantially greater economic demand despite tighter base-layer capacity.

Bitcoin vs Bitcoin Cash for Payments

Bitcoin Cash is generally better suited to users who specifically want inexpensive direct Layer 1 payments. Bitcoin offers broader acceptance and a larger payment ecosystem, with Lightning handling many fast, low-cost payment use cases above the base layer.

The practical choice depends on where the user wants settlement to happen. BCH tries to make a direct blockchain payment cheap enough for routine use. Bitcoin preserves scarcer base-layer block space while allowing payment activity to move through Layer 2 infrastructure.

Paying Directly On-Chain

For a simple wallet-to-wallet Layer 1 payment, Bitcoin Cash currently provides the clearer cost advantage.

The fee gap is particularly relevant for small merchant payments. Paying several dollars in network fees for a low-value purchase makes little economic sense. A sub-cent BCH fee barely changes the economics of the same transaction.

Bitcoin fees can also fall to very low levels when block-space demand is weak, but the user has less certainty that the same fee environment will persist during heavy network activity. Its mempool can become more competitive as users bid against each other for confirmation.

BCH is therefore better for users who want cheap merchant payments to remain on Layer 1.

Bitcoin Lightning vs Bitcoin Cash

Lightning and Bitcoin Cash solve payment scaling differently. Lightning moves many BTC payments away from the base blockchain through payment channels, while Bitcoin Cash aims to preserve low-cost payments directly on Layer 1.

A Lightning channel allows users to exchange updated balances without broadcasting every intermediate payment to Bitcoin's blockchain. Payments can also route across multiple connected channels, which means two users do not necessarily need a direct channel with each other.

This architecture can produce very fast, inexpensive payments while reducing the amount of base-layer block space consumed by each individual purchase. It also introduces another operating layer.

Bitcoin Cash keeps the payment path closer to the blockchain itself. The user creates a BCH transaction, broadcasts it and relies on available Layer 1 block space rather than a payment-channel network.

That simplicity comes with a different scaling assumption. BCH expects its blockchain to handle considerably more transaction data directly if adoption grows, while Lightning allows Bitcoin users to conduct repeated payments without writing each one individually to the base chain.

Which Is Better for Everyday Payments?

Choose BCH if inexpensive direct on-chain payments are the primary priority. Choose BTC if broader acceptance, greater liquidity or access to the Lightning ecosystem carries more weight.

A user who wants to send a tiny payment directly from one blockchain wallet to another will usually find BCH's current fee environment more attractive. Someone already operating inside the larger BTC economy may find Lightning more useful, especially where exchanges, wallets or merchants already support it.

Bitcoin vs Bitcoin Cash for Investing

Bitcoin Cash is not necessarily cheaper than Bitcoin simply because one BCH costs less than one BTC. Both assets have maximum supplies of 21 million, so market capitalization, liquidity, network usage and demand provide more meaningful comparisons than price per coin.

The lower nominal price of BCH can create unit bias. An investor may prefer seeing several whole coins in a wallet rather than a fraction of one BTC, but percentage returns work the same way either way.

A $1,000 investment rising 20% becomes $1,200 regardless of whether it bought 0.01 BTC or several BCH. Coin denomination therefore tells investors very little about valuation.

For readers approaching the comparison primarily as an allocation decision, our crypto investing guide provides a broader framework for position sizing, custody and risk.

BTC vs BCH Historical Performance

Bitcoin has produced much stronger long-term price performance since the 2017 fork.

CoinMarketCap's Aug. 1, 2017, historical snapshot listed Bitcoin at $2,718.26 and Bitcoin Cash at $380.01.

Using prices of roughly $80,625.57 for BTC and $279.68 for BCH on Aug. 27, 2026, the comparison looks like this:

For the five-year comparison, the Aug. 25, 2021, snapshot priced BTC at $48,960.79 and BCH at $649.31. On Aug. 25, 2025, BTC was $110,124.35 while BCH was $544.44.

The direction of long-term relative performance is still clear. A hypothetical $1,000 invested at those Aug. 1, 2017 prices would be worth roughly $29,661 in BTC versus around $736 in BCH at the Aug. 27, 2026 snapshot.

Growth of $1,000 in BTC vs BCH Since the Fork

The chart below indexes both assets to the same $1,000 starting value. This is more useful than plotting their nominal token prices because it compares investment performance rather than the price of one unit.

The two assets have also experienced very different drawdowns from their respective peaks. BTC's Aug. 27, 2026, price was roughly 36% below its CoinMarketCap all-time high of about $126,198 reached on Oct. 6, 2025. BCH remained roughly 94% below its recorded $4,355.62 all-time high from Dec. 20, 2017.

Historical performance cannot predict future returns, but it does show how differently the market has valued the two networks since their shared history ended.

Liquidity and Institutional Access

Institutional BCH products exist, but Bitcoin has a far broader and deeper institutional market.

The difference begins with spot investment products. U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs allow investors to gain regulated brokerage exposure to BTC without directly managing cryptocurrency wallets or private keys.

BlackRock's iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF, IBIT, alone hold approximately $60.34 billion in net assets. That single product illustrates the amount of institutional capital infrastructure that has developed around Bitcoin.

Derivatives provide another layer. CME offers Bitcoin futures and options across multiple contract sizes, giving professional investors regulated tools for hedging, speculation and basis strategies.

Institutional custody has developed alongside these products. Coinbase Institutional was selected as custodian for eight of the 11 U.S. spot Bitcoin ETF issuers at launch, while other specialist and bank-linked custody providers serve the broader BTC market.

Bitcoin Cash is not completely absent from institutional infrastructure.

Grayscale operates the Bitcoin Cash Trust, BCHG. Its regulatory filings confirm that the trust holds BCH on behalf of shareholders, although the trust does not operate a redemption program.

Outside the U.S. trust structure, 21Shares offers the physically backed Bitcoin Cash ETP, ABCH. The product had approximately $5.9 million in assets under management at the latest available snapshot and uses Coinbase Custody for institutional storage.

So, custody infrastructure exists for both assets, but the scale is difference. BTC supports a much larger ecosystem of ETFs, derivatives, custodians and institutional trading activity.

Is Bitcoin or Bitcoin Cash the Better Investment?

Bitcoin currently has the stronger market-based investment profile across liquidity, security, institutional adoption and network effects. Bitcoin Cash represents a smaller and more speculative thesis centered on peer-to-peer payments, cheap Layer 1 transactions and further ecosystem development.

BTC's strengths reinforce each other. A larger mining network improves its Proof-of-Work security profile. Deeper markets improve liquidity. Large institutional products expand access, while broader ownership and infrastructure make it easier for more capital to participate.

BCH asks investors to make a different bet. Its investment case depends much more heavily on whether cheap direct payments, additional CashVM functionality and wider BCH ecosystem activity eventually create renewed economic demand for the asset.

Bitcoin therefore has the stronger investment infrastructure today.

Bitcoin vs Bitcoin Cash Smart Contracts and Programmability

Bitcoin Cash currently provides richer native UTXO-based scripting and token functionality in several areas, while Bitcoin has the larger overall developer and Layer 2 ecosystem.

Neither base layer is equivalent to Ethereum's general-purpose smart contract environment. Both remain UTXO-based networks descended from Bitcoin Script, but their scripting capabilities and development philosophies have diverged.

Bitcoin: Taproot, Tapscript and Layered Programmability

Bitcoin's base-layer programmability remains deliberately limited compared with general-purpose smart contract chains, although Taproot expanded what developers can build and how complex spending conditions can be expressed.

Taproot is a Bitcoin protocol upgrade activated in 2021. BIP 341 introduced Taproot outputs using Schnorr signatures and Merkle-based script paths.

Schnorr is the signature scheme standardized for Bitcoin through BIP 340. It provides cleaner mathematical properties for advanced signature constructions and forms part of the cryptographic foundation used by Taproot.

Tapscript refers to the updated Bitcoin scripting rules introduced with Taproot. BIP 342 defines how script-path spending works for Taproot outputs and updates several Bitcoin Script rules.

Taproot also uses a Merkle structure associated with the MAST concept. Different spending conditions can be committed within a tree while revealing only the branch required for the actual spend. This can improve efficiency and privacy for more complex conditions.

Bitcoin Script still does not become a general-purpose virtual machine. Much of Bitcoin's broader programmability therefore develops through higher layers and transaction protocols.

Ordinals showed how much experimentation can still happen using existing Bitcoin transaction rules. Inscriptions associate data with individual satoshis through witness data, while Runes introduced a fungible token protocol using Bitcoin transactions and OP_RETURN-based messages.

These systems increased the range of assets and applications built around BTC without changing Bitcoin into an Ethereum-style smart contract platform.

Bitcoin Cash: CashVM, CashScript and CashTokens

Bitcoin Cash's scripting environment has evolved substantially since the 2017 fork. The progression runs from the fork itself, to CashTokens in 2023, ABLA in 2024, major VM upgrades in 2025 and another CashVM expansion in May 2026.

CashVM refers to the Bitcoin Cash virtual machine that evaluates BCH transaction scripts. Like Bitcoin Script, it operates inside a UTXO model, but successive BCH upgrades have expanded the operations available to developers.

CashScript provides a higher-level development environment on top of that VM. Its Solidity-inspired language and TypeScript SDK let developers write contracts in a more readable format and compile them into Bitcoin Cash script.

CashTokens arrived through the May 15, 2023 network upgrade. The upgrade added native fungible and non-fungible token functionality to BCH's UTXO system rather than requiring a completely separate token ledger.

Those tokens can interact with contract logic. That opens the door to more sophisticated covenant-based applications, where the rules controlling one UTXO can constrain aspects of the transaction that spends it.

BCH then expanded its virtual machine further in 2025. The May 15, 2025 upgrade introduced Targeted VM Limits and BigInt.

VM Limits replaced several older execution restrictions with resource-based limits intended to support more capable contracts while keeping computation bounded. BigInt expanded the arithmetic developers could perform beyond the earlier integer constraints.

The next expansion arrived on May 15, 2026. The upgrade activated bounded loops, reusable function capabilities, bitwise operations and Pay-to-Script.

Bounded loops allow controlled repetition without permitting unlimited execution. Functions let developers reuse contract logic more efficiently. Bitwise operations add low-level manipulation tools, while Pay-to-Script provides a standardized approach for constructing outputs around scripts.

These protocol changes are developed through CHIPs, or Cash Improvement Proposals, which provide a framework for proposing, discussing and coordinating BCH upgrades.

The chronology changes the comparison considerably. Bitcoin Cash in today is not simply the 2017 Bitcoin codebase with larger blocks. CashTokens, VM Limits and the 2026 CashVM additions have given its UTXO environment considerably more native functionality.

Which Network Is More Programmable?

There is no single programmability winner because Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash lead in different categories.

BCH currently provides richer native UTXO scripting and token functionality in several areas. Bitcoin has a much larger development environment around its comparatively conservative base layer.

Bitcoin vs Bitcoin Cash Decentralization

Bitcoin's smaller base-layer capacity is designed partly to keep independent validation practical, but block size alone cannot determine how decentralized a blockchain is.

A serious decentralization comparison has to consider node requirements, mining concentration, total hash rate, software diversity, block propagation, bandwidth demands and economic ownership.

A full node independently verifies transactions and blocks rather than trusting a third party to tell it which transactions are valid. Resource requirements therefore affect how practical independent validation is.

Larger heavily used blocks require more bandwidth to receive and relay, more storage over time and additional computation to validate. Those costs can influence who can realistically operate nodes.

Mining introduces another dimension. Bitcoin has vastly more total hash power, but mining-pool concentration also affects how block production is distributed. Pool statistics require interpretation because a pool operator can coordinate hash power supplied by many independent mining businesses.

Software diversity adds another variable. Bitcoin Core dominates the Bitcoin node ecosystem, while Bitcoin Cash Node is a major implementation in BCH alongside other compatible software. Multiple implementations can reduce dependence on one codebase, although incompatible consensus behavior between implementations creates risks of its own.

Economic ownership may be the hardest dimension to measure. Blockchain addresses do not map neatly to people or institutions, and custodians can hold coins for huge numbers of customers.

Decentralization therefore resists a single score. Block size tells us something about validation costs. It does not settle the argument by itself.

Does Bitcoin's Smaller Block Capacity Make It More Decentralized?

It can reduce validation and bandwidth requirements, but decentralization depends on more than block capacity.

Constrained blocks limit how much data full nodes must download, verify and propagate during each block interval. In theory, keeping those resource demands lower makes independent validation accessible to a broader range of users and hardware.

That is one of the arguments behind Bitcoin's conservative approach to base-layer expansion.

The argument becomes misleading when turned into the equation "small blocks equal decentralization." A blockchain could use small blocks and still have concentrated mining, concentrated economic ownership or limited software diversity.

Bitcoin's smaller block capacity is therefore better understood as reducing one source of centralization pressure. It does not prove that every other part of the network is decentralized.

Do Larger Bitcoin Cash Blocks Create a Centralization Risk?

Larger heavily utilized blocks can increase bandwidth, storage and propagation requirements, but BCH's maximum available capacity is much greater than its typical current block utilization.

That distinction is central to judging today's network.

BCH's recent average block size was only around 70 KB, far below the amount of block space its consensus rules can permit. Node operators are therefore not routinely validating blocks anywhere close to the network's theoretical maximum capacity.

If BCH adoption grew enough to produce persistently much larger blocks, bandwidth, storage and propagation costs would rise. Hardware and network infrastructure may also become cheaper and faster over time, so the practical burden depends on both transaction growth and technological progress.

Maximum block capacity describes what BCH can permit. Typical block utilization describes what nodes actually process. Treating those as the same number exaggerates the current resource burden.

Why Did Bitcoin Cash Split From Bitcoin?

Bitcoin Cash split from Bitcoin on Aug. 1, 2017, after developers, miners and users failed to agree on how Bitcoin should scale. One camp supported greater on-chain block capacity, while another favored SegWit and a more conservative approach to base-layer growth.

The split became a hard fork because the two groups eventually adopted incompatible consensus rules. From that point onward, BTC and BCH continued as separate networks with separate transaction histories.

The Bitcoin Block-Size Debate

The block-size debate centered on how Bitcoin should accommodate more users without compromising the properties its supporters valued.

Large-block advocates argued that Bitcoin should increase Layer 1 transaction capacity so ordinary peer-to-peer payments could remain cheap as usage expanded. More block space would reduce the need for users to compete through higher transaction fees.

Critics argued that substantially larger blocks could increase bandwidth, storage and validation requirements for full nodes. If those costs rose too quickly, fewer people might be willing or able to verify the network independently.

Bitcoin Core developers worked on Segregated Witness as a way to address transaction malleability, improve effective capacity and create cleaner foundations for systems such as Lightning without making aggressive base-layer block increases.

Large-block advocates generally regarded that approach as inadequate. They wanted more transaction throughput directly on the blockchain rather than depending primarily on layered systems.

The dispute involved technical trade-offs, governance questions and competing visions of Bitcoin's role as money.

SegWit and the Bitcoin Cash Hard Fork

Segregated Witness and the Bitcoin Cash hard fork turned the scaling disagreement into two separate networks.

The chains shared history through Bitcoin block 478,558. Bitcoin Cash then diverged at block height 478,559 on Aug. 1, 2017.

BTC continued along the SegWit path. BCH adopted incompatible consensus rules that did not follow Bitcoin's SegWit roadmap and increased available block capacity.

The original Bitcoin Cash fork specification required support for an 8 MB excessive block size, a substantial increase relative to the pre-fork Bitcoin limit.

The two assets also became economically independent from that point. BTC and BCH developed separate prices, mining difficulties, communities, software and upgrade paths.

Users who controlled the appropriate keys at the time of the fork could generally access corresponding coins on both resulting ledgers because the transaction history before the split was shared.

How Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash Evolved After the Fork

Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash have changed enough since 2017 that their present-day differences extend well beyond the original block-size argument.

Bitcoin's post-fork development can be summarized as SegWit, Lightning growth, Taproot and newer forms of asset and protocol experimentation.

Bitcoin Cash moved through larger Layer 1 blocks, the Bitcoin SV split, CashTokens, ABLA and successive CashVM upgrades.

Bitcoin vs Bitcoin Cash: Which Is Better?

Bitcoin is the stronger overall network when security, liquidity, institutional adoption and ecosystem size are prioritized. Bitcoin Cash has the clearer advantage when extremely cheap direct Layer 1 transactions are the main requirement.

Bitcoin's security advantage is supported by roughly 269 times more measured SHA-256 hash rate. Its economic lead is even larger in absolute market capitalization, while institutional access now includes large spot ETFs, regulated derivatives and extensive professional custody infrastructure.

BCH's strongest advantages are more targeted. Its direct on-chain transactions remain extremely inexpensive under current usage, and its scripting environment has become considerably more capable through CashTokens and successive CashVM upgrades.

Bitcoin is the stronger overall network when security, liquidity, adoption and ecosystem size are prioritized. Bitcoin Cash has a clearer advantage when the requirement is very low-cost direct Layer 1 payments.

How to Buy and Store Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash

BTC and BCH are separate assets running on separate networks. A wallet supporting Bitcoin does not automatically guarantee safe handling of Bitcoin Cash, so users should verify both the asset and receiving network before sending funds.

1. Choose an exchange that supports BTC and BCH. Both assets are widely available, but supported trading pairs, withdrawal fees and regional availability vary between platforms. Our best crypto exchanges guide provides a broader comparison of major options.
2. Buy the correct asset. Bitcoin trades under the ticker BTC, while Bitcoin Cash uses BCH. Check the ticker and trading pair before placing an order, particularly when searching for similarly named Bitcoin-related assets.
3. Choose a wallet that explicitly supports BTC or BCH. Wallet compatibility should be confirmed before withdrawing from an exchange. Bitcoin Cash commonly uses CashAddr, while Bitcoin has its own address formats. A wallet supporting one network should not be assumed to support the other.
4. Verify the receiving network and address before sending. BTC and BCH transactions settle on different blockchains, even though the two networks share history before the 2017 fork. Check the selected asset, withdrawal network and destination address carefully before confirming a transfer.
5. Send a small test transaction before moving a large balance. A test transfer helps confirm that the wallet, address and network are correct before more funds are committed. This is particularly useful when moving assets to a new wallet for the first time.
6. Secure the wallet credentials once the funds arrive. With self-custody, control ultimately depends on the wallet's private keys. Many wallets use a recovery phrase as the backup, and anyone who obtains it may be able to restore and spend the funds.
7. Consider colder storage for larger long-term holdings. A hardware wallet keeps transaction signing away from an everyday internet-connected device. Our best crypto wallets guide compares hardware, mobile and software options for different custody needs.

The central rule is simple: treat BTC and BCH as completely separate assets whenever money is being moved. Similar names and shared history do not make their wallets or networks interchangeable.

Bitcoin vs Bitcoin Cash: Closing Thoughts

Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash share monetary roots, a 21 million supply ceiling and SHA-256 Proof of Work, but their scaling philosophies have produced increasingly different networks.

Bitcoin has won the economic and security scale contest so far. It carries vastly more hash power, liquidity, institutional capital and infrastructure, while Lightning provides a separate route for fast payments beyond the base blockchain.

The practical choice comes back to your purpose. BTC offers the stronger security, investment and ecosystem profile. BCH offers cheaper native on-chain payments and richer native UTXO functionality in several areas. Those are different strengths rather than interchangeable versions of the same network.